Skip to content


Randupurayil Kunhisore, Karnavan and anr. Vs. Neroth Kunhi Kannan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.207
AppellantRandupurayil Kunhisore, Karnavan and anr.
RespondentNeroth Kunhi Kannan and ors.
Cases ReferredMalikan v. Shankunni
Excerpt:
malabar compensation for tenants improvement act of 1887 and 1900 - contracts made before 1st january 1880--whether governed by act of 1887. - .....made before or after the coming into operation of the act of 1887. as regards viru kammad v. mrishnan 21 m.k 149, a reference to the printed papers shows that the contracts of the defendants, other than the sixth defendant, were, in fact, made after first january 1886. we are unable to agree with the decision in malikan v. shankunni 13 m.k 502.2. our answer to the question which has been referred to us is that in the case of a contract made prior to 1st january 1886, the rate of compensation is governed by the terms of the contract.
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that Section 7 of the Act of 1887, which is reproduced as Section 19 of the Act of 1900, precludes parties from contracting themselves out of the Act by any contract made after first January 1886, but that it does not affect the validity of contracts made prior to 1st January 1886, whether the improvements were made before or after the coming into operation of the Act of 1887. As regards Viru Kammad v. Mrishnan 21 M.k 149, a reference to the printed papers shows that the contracts of the defendants, other than the sixth defendant, were, in fact, made after first January 1886. We are unable to agree with the decision in Malikan v. Shankunni 13 M.k 502.

2. Our answer to the question which has been referred to us is that in the case of a contract made prior to 1st January 1886, the rate of compensation is governed by the terms of the contract.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //